In two games, the Canucks have been average at best, yet have three points. It shows the talent, depth and confidence of the team, but the fall side of winning when you play poorly is it may lull you into a fall sense of security. Considering how professionally the players have conducted themselves over the past year, I expect they will hit their stride as a team over the next few games. This was only the 4th game for the Canucks veterans, and have only played three as a team.

The initial reaction to the Canucks approach to the reduced games for veterans in the pre-season seems mostly negative, but I think it's too early to write it off. If they can keep collecting points until they take off in a few games, then I think it was a good move to rest the veterans and somewhat reduce the wear-and-tear of a long season.

Dan and Hank didn't have a great game, but even if they play well in a third of their shifts they're a dominant force.

Ballard continues to look better, but he shares part of the blame on Atkinson's goal that opened the scoring. Higgins and Malhotra mucked things up and Tanev was running around a bit on that shift, but Ballard also left the front of the net and cheated towards the back of the goal-line, allowing Atkinson to barrel down the slot. The early word for tomorrow is Alberts coming in for Tanev, which is the right guy to take out if you're trying to get Alberts into a game early in the season. I'll stay a bit more patient to see where Ballard's ice-time goes, on even strength and special teams, but so far it seems he's stuck playing 15-16 minutes again.

It's too early for all this goalie and toughness controversy, it's too volatile too early. I'll come back to it if there's anything of substance to discuss once we get just a little bit deeper into the season.

Larry Goodenough wrote:One more time, if that is the Canucks response, then as an opponent, I will slash, punch and hit a Sedin after the whistle every chance I get knowing it will draw a reaction and a penalty.

In today's NHL, few players fear retribution. If they do, it's tempered by the millions of dollars they will earn by being the type of player that runs the Sedins and then puts his team on the powerplay by drawing retribution.

Fighting majors do not result in a PP. I've heard and read today people claiming "it was a close game so nothing could be done". WTH does that even mean? This is where someone should make a pointless reference to the instigator penalty, as if it is relevant.

It appears you are distracted by a recent series of speeding tickets to understand?

I get the whole idea of taking the high road and making a team pay on the PP. I also like that we got the win. But, at some point someone on our team needs to step up. We do have team toughness and we do have a great PP. Those things will win us games. But we also have or are getting a reputation as being pussies. Rightly or wrongly we are getting this reputation ( I think wrongly) but it is perception that counts in the end.

The problem as I see it is that we don't play well when we lose our focus and get running around. We get rattled for some reason. We just don't have the horse or horses to play that mean spirited in your face crash and bang intimidating style. Many have auditioned for that role on both the 4th and 3rd lines. But no one has really stood the test of time. Torres played that role to some extent last season and Rypien did when he had his head in the game. Cowan and Hordichuck played that role sporadically for short periods of time. But we really need to find two players on the 4th line that can do that game in and game out.

AV never really plays the 4th line much any way so I think MG still has a job to do to try and fine tune the line up. I don't advocate a 4th line goon good for a fight or two type of player. I like Jackman on Calgary as an example or Neal in his hey day on Ottawa. Those type of players are the types I would love to see on our 4th line.

Larry Goodenough wrote:One more time, if that is the Canucks response, then as an opponent, I will slash, punch and hit a Sedin after the whistle every chance I get knowing it will draw a reaction and a penalty.

In today's NHL, few players fear retribution. If they do, it's tempered by the millions of dollars they will earn by being the type of player that runs the Sedins and then puts his team on the powerplay by drawing retribution.

Fighting majors do not result in a PP. I've heard and read today people claiming "it was a close game so nothing could be done". WTH does that even mean? This is where someone should make a pointless reference to the instigator penalty, as if it is relevant.

It appears you are distracted by a recent series of speeding tickets to understand?

I didn't get one, the cops were all reasonable, well-intentioned Canucks fans.

---

I thought there was a injury thread, but didn't look very hard. Sedin missed practice today and is on the injury list with a charley horse. He is likely playing tomorrow. In case anyone was wondering:

The term may date back to American slang of the 1880s, possibly from the pitcher Charlie "Old Hoss" Radbourn who is said to have suffered from cramps.[8] Another story mentions a horse named Charley that used to work at Comiskey Park, the Chicago White Sox's baseball stadium. In those days, an old, retired horse was often called "Charlie."

dhabums wrote:You discount the effect that physical deterrent has in hockey because you've never played hockey in a league that allowed fighting. Either that or you are the toughest guy in the city and nobody on the ice scared you.

Habums, the thought of being punched is intimidating to mortals like you or me, but the average NHL player is as tough as nails, with a pain threshold beyond the stratosphere. They'd gladly take a few love taps from a middleweight in exchange for an instigator penalty. If the Canucks are running around thinking about killing Methot then they are not thinking about winning the game.

dhabums wrote:Fighting majors do not result in a PP. I've heard and read today people claiming "it was a close game so nothing could be done". WTH does that even mean? (This is where someone should make a pointless reference to the instigator penalty, as if it is relevant.)

Unfortunately, I'm not quite smart enough to follow your reasoning here. Perhaps you can assist. Why is the instigator penalty irrelevant? Both Bieksa and Volpatti seemed to think it was quite relevant.

dhabums wrote:You discount the effect that physical deterrent has in hockey because you've never played hockey in a league that allowed fighting. Either that or you are the toughest guy in the city and nobody on the ice scared you.

Habums, the thought of being punched is intimidating to mortals like you or me, but the average NHL player is as tough as nails, with a pain threshold beyond the stratosphere. They'd gladly take a few love taps from a middleweight in exchange for an instigator penalty. If the Canucks are running around thinking about killing Methot then they are not thinking about winning the game.

Ahh yes, the mythical instigator penalty. Your immortalization of NHLers is amusing. Methot has 8 career fights, including junior. That means I've had more and I am no NHLer. Or AHLer. Or ECHLer. He had no interest apparently in fighting last night. Clearly he was ready to go to take a "few love taps". He was prepared though to dole out the cheapshots. And why not?

To make this very clear kids, you can start a fight in hockey and not get an instigator. In fact, I think the refs lets us know last night when they didn't give Russell any extra for CLEARLY starting a fightette with Burrows.

The Canucks don't need a goon. They do need a guy that will step up. This is the regular season for fucks sake. The Sedins won't last 50 games if we keep letting them get pummeled.

I'm not afraid about getting a whole trio of goons to play shot-for-shot with people. But it would be nice to have someone that wasn't afraid of taking a run at someone or pumping their eyes shut for running over our best players.

dhabums wrote:Fighting majors do not result in a PP. I've heard and read today people claiming "it was a close game so nothing could be done". WTH does that even mean? (This is where someone should make a pointless reference to the instigator penalty, as if it is relevant.)

Unfortunately, I'm not quite smart enough to follow your reasoning here. Perhaps you can assist. Why is the instigator penalty irrelevant? Both Bieksa and Volpatti seemed to think it was quite relevant.

To make this clear, let's go to the far left. Would you be ok with the Sedins getting run and injured nightly without a response but a PP? If yes, you can stop reading. If no, when do you respond? If the exact same thing happens tomorrow night and it's 5 minutes into the 2nd period do we cower under the threat of a POSSIBLE 2 minute PK? I mean it's 1-1 and we don't want a penalty? Or if Methot does the exact same thing next game in the 3rd period? When is it ok? I am curious. Do you ever say "ok, now it's time to do something." If yes, we clearly agree on what should be done, we just disagree on when.

I find it amusing that the general consensus is if you protect stars like the Sedins that you're automatically giving away 2pts and losing the game....esp to a bunch of chumps like the BJs. I saw Burrows bump into Mason and players start crosschecking & punching him....two separate occasions ....once he got 2min alone....nothing to the BJs and the other time he got 4 and the BJ he scrummed w/ got 2. Where's the instigator there? FAct is, it rarely gets called. Since Burrows was getting 2 for goalie interference....once the BJ attacked him should there have been an instigator call and a game misconduct? So how did that thuggery on the part of the BJs result in them losing? Truth is it didn't. The PP goal came when Clitsome was in the box for an unrelated highsticking infraction. Bottom line is something needs to be done before the Sedins end up retiring prematurely. Clearly the NHL has NO intention of ensuring their safety from thugs. Joke.